Pular para o conteúdo

Disciplina · Linguagens

Questões de Inglês do ENEM

Questões de Inglês, da área de Linguagens, com gabarito em cada página.

  • 5.311 questões
  • 57 assuntos

Resultados: 5.311 questões

Página 135 de 266

  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Muitos textos da Internet relacionados ao humor são usados como propulsores da aprendizagem, especialmente de língua estrangeira. Observe o que segue.

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, UFGD 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Available in: https://www.lingq.com/blog/english-language-memes/. Access in: 20 nov. 2021.


    O efeito humorístico desse texto ocorre devido 
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7de2fdf8-04
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    In ‘In describing their findings, Karabarbounis and Neiman are explicit that progress in digital technologies is an important driver of this phenomenon’ (lines 125-128), ‘this phenomenon’ refers to the.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7de4e399-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    INSTRUCTIONS: HOW TO INSTALL A WASHING MACHINE


    1. Hook Up the Drain Line. Depending upon your machine, you might have to hook up the drain connection to the back of the machine with a hose clamp. Sometimes, the drain connection is already installed. If yours is the latter, simply push the drain line into the drain line standpipe before plugging in the machine.

    2. Test the Machine. Lastly, begin a test load to ensure the washer is working properly. When you begin the test load, check the water lines at all four connections for signs of a leak. Allow the machine to go through the full process so you can watch for proper drainage as well. Watching the machine carefully this first time can save you from a flood or maybe even a small leak that you may not catch right away.

    3. Place the Machine. Using a dolly or a strong helper, carefully position the washing machine very close to the wall with the drain, hose outlets, and power outlet for beginning the process. 4. Plug in the Machine. Plug in the electric cord before you push the washer into the final position. Turn on the water lines.

    5. Connect the Water Hoses. Then, connect the washing machine hoses to the water outlets behind the washing machine. Note that the outlets on the machine are "hot" and "cold." Keep track of the hoses so you can remember to hook them into the appropriate hot and cold valves.

    STICKLEY, Aaron. How to install a washing machine. The Spruce: make your best home. Published in August, 30th, 2021. Available in: https://www.thespruce. com/installing-a-washing-machine-2718668. Acess in: 01 nov. 2021 (adapted).


    Manuais de instrução trazem, em passos, etapas para instalação de máquinas. O texto dado explica como instalar uma máquina de lavar roupas. Entretanto, no texto, as etapas para esse procedimento estão desorganizadas. De acordo com o contexto, organize a sequência das etapas apresentadas em 1, 2, 3, 4 e 5. Sendo assim, a ordem correta para as instruções em sequência lógica e coerente do texto é a relativa aos 
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7de56056-04
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Imagem da questão de Inglês, UFGD 2022, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Available in: https://www.lingq.com/blog/english-language-memes/. Access in: 20 nov. 2021


    Com base na imagem apresentada, é correto afirmar que 
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7de7ba65-04
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    The option in which the phrase in boldface is correctly explained is.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7de9a441-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Based on the meanings the words in bold convey in the text,
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7dee922d-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Advérbios e conjunções | Adverbs and conjunctions

    The expression in bold and the item in italics convey equivalent ideas in.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7df382f8-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    In terms of numerical reference.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7dfd7043-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Figura 1 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 2 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension 

    Figura 3 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    Figura 4 de 4 da questão de Inglês, PUC - RJ 2014, Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

    According to the text, digital capital.
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e028c4b-3c
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        In my research recently published in an open access journal, I used a popular language model, GPT-4 by OpenAI, to create simple summaries of scientific papers. These summaries generated by artificial intelligence (AI) used simpler language and more common words, like “job” instead of “occupation”, than summaries written by the researchers who had done the work.


        In one experiment, I found that readers of the AI-generated summaries had a better understanding of the science than readers of the human-written summaries. A second experiment investigated what effects the simpler summaries might have on people’s perceptions of the scientists who performed the research. In this experiment, participants rated the scientists whose work was described in the simpler texts as more credible than the scientists whose work was described in the more complex texts.


        Have you ever read about a scientific discovery and felt like it was written in a foreign language? New scientific information is probably hard to understand — especially if you try to read a science article in a research journal. In an era where understanding science is crucial for informed decision--making, the abilities to comprehend and communicate complex ideas are more important than ever. Trust in science has been declining for years, and one contributing factor may be the challenge of understanding scientific jargon.


        As AI continues to evolve, its role in science communication may expand, especially if using generative AI becomes more commonplace. Simple science descriptions are preferable to and more beneficial than complex ones, and AI tools can help. But scientists could also achieve the same goals by working harder to minimize jargon and communicate clearly — no AI necessary.


    (David Markowitz. https://theconversation.com, 30.10.2024. Adaptado.)

    According to the experiments described in the first and second paragraphs, AI-generated science summaries, if compared with human-written summaries, are more
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e3a8384-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        In my research recently published in an open access journal, I used a popular language model, GPT-4 by OpenAI, to create simple summaries of scientific papers. These summaries generated by artificial intelligence (AI) used simpler language and more common words, like “job” instead of “occupation”, than summaries written by the researchers who had done the work.


        In one experiment, I found that readers of the AI-generated summaries had a better understanding of the science than readers of the human-written summaries. A second experiment investigated what effects the simpler summaries might have on people’s perceptions of the scientists who performed the research. In this experiment, participants rated the scientists whose work was described in the simpler texts as more credible than the scientists whose work was described in the more complex texts.


        Have you ever read about a scientific discovery and felt like it was written in a foreign language? New scientific information is probably hard to understand — especially if you try to read a science article in a research journal. In an era where understanding science is crucial for informed decision--making, the abilities to comprehend and communicate complex ideas are more important than ever. Trust in science has been declining for years, and one contributing factor may be the challenge of understanding scientific jargon.


        As AI continues to evolve, its role in science communication may expand, especially if using generative AI becomes more commonplace. Simple science descriptions are preferable to and more beneficial than complex ones, and AI tools can help. But scientists could also achieve the same goals by working harder to minimize jargon and communicate clearly — no AI necessary.


    (David Markowitz. https://theconversation.com, 30.10.2024. Adaptado.)

    No trecho do primeiro parágrafo “‘job’ instead of ‘occupation’”, a expressão sublinhada pode ser substituída, sem alteração de sentido, por:
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e3e2af5-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        In my research recently published in an open access journal, I used a popular language model, GPT-4 by OpenAI, to create simple summaries of scientific papers. These summaries generated by artificial intelligence (AI) used simpler language and more common words, like “job” instead of “occupation”, than summaries written by the researchers who had done the work.


        In one experiment, I found that readers of the AI-generated summaries had a better understanding of the science than readers of the human-written summaries. A second experiment investigated what effects the simpler summaries might have on people’s perceptions of the scientists who performed the research. In this experiment, participants rated the scientists whose work was described in the simpler texts as more credible than the scientists whose work was described in the more complex texts.


        Have you ever read about a scientific discovery and felt like it was written in a foreign language? New scientific information is probably hard to understand — especially if you try to read a science article in a research journal. In an era where understanding science is crucial for informed decision--making, the abilities to comprehend and communicate complex ideas are more important than ever. Trust in science has been declining for years, and one contributing factor may be the challenge of understanding scientific jargon.


        As AI continues to evolve, its role in science communication may expand, especially if using generative AI becomes more commonplace. Simple science descriptions are preferable to and more beneficial than complex ones, and AI tools can help. But scientists could also achieve the same goals by working harder to minimize jargon and communicate clearly — no AI necessary.


    (David Markowitz. https://theconversation.com, 30.10.2024. Adaptado.)

    De acordo com o terceiro parágrafo, a queda no nível de confiança na ciência por parte do público leigo deve-se, entre outros motivos, à
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e4376f4-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

        In my research recently published in an open access journal, I used a popular language model, GPT-4 by OpenAI, to create simple summaries of scientific papers. These summaries generated by artificial intelligence (AI) used simpler language and more common words, like “job” instead of “occupation”, than summaries written by the researchers who had done the work.


        In one experiment, I found that readers of the AI-generated summaries had a better understanding of the science than readers of the human-written summaries. A second experiment investigated what effects the simpler summaries might have on people’s perceptions of the scientists who performed the research. In this experiment, participants rated the scientists whose work was described in the simpler texts as more credible than the scientists whose work was described in the more complex texts.


        Have you ever read about a scientific discovery and felt like it was written in a foreign language? New scientific information is probably hard to understand — especially if you try to read a science article in a research journal. In an era where understanding science is crucial for informed decision--making, the abilities to comprehend and communicate complex ideas are more important than ever. Trust in science has been declining for years, and one contributing factor may be the challenge of understanding scientific jargon.


        As AI continues to evolve, its role in science communication may expand, especially if using generative AI becomes more commonplace. Simple science descriptions are preferable to and more beneficial than complex ones, and AI tools can help. But scientists could also achieve the same goals by working harder to minimize jargon and communicate clearly — no AI necessary.


    (David Markowitz. https://theconversation.com, 30.10.2024. Adaptado.)

    No trecho do último parágrafo “scientists could also achieve the same goals by working harder”, o termo sublinhado indica
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e4691fe-68
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    As to the use of plastic by Americans, the text mentions that it
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e4d60d4-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    According to the text, the United States
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e510902-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    One of the factors that contributes to the huge amount of plastic waste is the fact that
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e5352fd-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    The article mentions that half of the American recyclable waste is
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e55a361-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    A high percentage of the USA's exported recyclable waste goes to countries that
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e57cf21-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    Considering the information provided in the text, it is clear that of the total plastic waste in the United States
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e5a1a6b-92
  • Linguagens

    Inglês

    Americans May Add Five Times More Plastic to the Oceans Than Thought

    The United States is using more
    plastic than ever, and waste exported for
    recycling is often mishandled, according
    to a new study.
    The United States contribution
    to coastal plastic pollution worldwide is
    significantly larger than previously
    thought, possibly by as much as five
    times, according to a study published
    Friday. The research, published in Science
    Advances, is the sequel to a 2015 paper
    by the same authors. Two factors
    contributed to the sharp increase:
    Americans are using more plastic than
    ever and the current study included
    pollution generated by United States
    exports of plastic waste, while the earlier
    one did not.
    The United States, which does
    not have sufficient infrastructure to
    handle its recycling demands at home,
    exports about half of its recyclable waste.
    Of the total exported, about 88 percent
    ends up in countries considered to have
    inadequate waste management.
    “When you consider how much
    of our plastic waste isn’t actually
    recyclable because it is low-value,
    contaminated or difficult to process, it’s
    not surprising that a lot of it ends up
    polluting the environment,” said the
    study’s lead author, Kara Lavender Law,
    research professor of oceanography at
    Sea Education Association, in a
    statement.
    The study estimates that in
    2016, the United States contributed
    between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of
    plastic waste to the oceans through a
    combination of littering, dumping and 
    mismanaged exports. At a minimum,
    that’s almost double the total estimated
    waste in the team’s previous study. At the
    high end, it would be a fivefold increase
    over the earlier estimate.
    Nicholas Mallos, a senior
    director at the Ocean Conservancy and an
    author of the study, said the upper
    estimate would be equal to a pile of
    plastic covering the area of the White
    House Lawn and reaching as high as the
    Empire State Building.
    The ranges are wide partly
    because “there’s no real standard for
    being able to provide good quality data on
    collection and disposal of waste in
    general,” said Ted Siegler, a resource
    economist at DSM Environmental
    Solutions, a consulting firm, and an
    author of the study. Mr. Siegler said the
    researchers had evaluated waste-disposal
    practices in countries around the world
    and used their “best professional
    judgment” to determine the lowest and
    highest amounts of plastic waste likely to
    escape into the environment. They settled
    on a range of 25 percent to 75 percent.
    Tony Walker, an associate
    professor at the Dalhousie University
    School for Resource and Environmental
    Studies in Halifax, Nova Scotia, said that
    analyzing waste data can amount to a
    “data minefield” because there are no
    data standards across municipalities.
    Moreover, once plastic waste is shipped
    overseas, he said, data is often not
    recorded at all.
    Nonetheless, Dr. Walker, who
    was not involved in the study, said it
    could offer a more accurate accounting of
    plastic pollution than the previous study,
    which likely underestimated the United
    States’ contribution. “They’ve put their
    best estimate, as accurate as they can be
    with this data,” he said, and used ranges,
    which underscores that the figures are
    estimates.
    Of the plastics that go into the
    United States recycling system, about 9
    percent of the country’s total plastic
    waste, there is no guarantee that they’ll
    be remade into new consumer goods. New
    plastic is so inexpensive to manufacture
    that only certain expensive, high-grade
    plastics are profitable to recycle within the
    United States, which is why roughly half
    of the country’s plastic waste was shipped
    abroad in 2016, the most recent year for
    which data is available.
    Since 2016, however, the
    recycling landscape has changed. China
    and many countries in Southeast Asia
    have stopped accepting plastic waste
    imports. And lower oil prices have further
    reduced the market for recycled plastic.
    “What the new study really underscores is
    we have to get a handle on source
    reduction at home,” Mr. Mallos said. “That
    starts with eliminating unnecessary and
    problematic single-use plastics.”

    From: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/
    The sentence “The study estimates that in 2016, the United States contributed between 1.1 and 2.2 million metric tons of plastic waste to the oceans…” (lines 36-39) contains a/an
    Escolha uma alternativa para a questão 7e5c6294-92